Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 157
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation 5 Strengthening Traditional Tobacco Control Measures During the 1990s, substantial progress was made in laying the foundation for an effective tobacco control policy, but that progress has stalled for at least three reasons. First, it is difficult to sustain public attention on endemic problems; in particular, on the challenges of prevention and cessation. Public attention (including the priority-setting driven by public opinion) is easily diverted to the crisis of the moment, and in times of austerity, expenditures on prevention and cessation efforts always seem to be the most dispensable. These tendencies explain in part why the political commitment needed for a sustained effort is lacking. Second, the political and commercial power of the tobacco industry remains substantial, even following the disclosures of past misconduct arising out of recent state reimbursement litigation, the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), and the U.S. Justice Department’s suit under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Third, all the tobacco control measures described in Chapter 3 have had to be implemented in the context of a largely unregulated market in which tobacco products continue to be aggressively promoted. These promotion efforts are still at work, and it is difficult for public health programs to keep up, especially when the economy falters and public revenues fall short. The behavioral potential of aggressive prevention and cessation efforts is amply illustrated by the successes achieved in California, Massachusetts, and other states. So, too, however, is the fragility of these efforts—when the money disappeared, so did the programs. The nation needs to muster the political will to intensify the efforts implemented so successfully during the 1990s and to build on them. These
OCR for page 158
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation comprehensive state programs, as well as their individual components, have been shown to be effective. Failure to sustain these efforts will cost lives. This chapter of the committee’s report outlines the core components of tobacco control as they have been implemented within the existing legal structure. It should be emphasized, however, that one of the constraints on the current legal structure is that no federal agency has regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products. Another constraint is that the federal statute regulating the labeling and advertising of cigarettes forecloses state regulation of advertising and marketing of cigarettes “based on smoking and health.” This unfortunate circumstance, addressed in Chapter 6, preempts most state efforts to regulate the appearance, display, promotion, and placement of cigarettes in retail outlets. Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of the effectiveness of comprehensive state programs, as well as the states’ current approaches toward funding these programs. The states’ expenditures for tobacco control are placed in the context of the revenue streams generated by tobacco excise taxes and payments received under the MSA. The remainder of the chapter focuses on seven key substantive elements of comprehensive state programs: Tobacco excise taxes Smoking restrictions with broad coverage Youth-access restrictions with adequate enforcement Prevention programs based in schools, families, and health care systems Media campaigns Cessation programs Grassroots community advocacy The recommendations made throughout the chapter are meant to set forth a blueprint for strengthening and intensifying current tobacco control policies and programs, assuming that the current legal structure of tobacco control remains unchanged. The chapter closes with a projection of the likely impact of following (or not following) this blueprint on the national prevalence of tobacco use over the next 20 years. COMPREHENSIVE STATE PROGRAMS During the early days of tobacco use prevention, after the publication of the 1964 Surgeon General’s report (HEW 1964), many state health departments relied on the funds in their state budgets for tobacco control and treatment. Interventions tended to be targeted toward smoking cessation for individuals. By the late 1980s, however, funding for comprehensive state
OCR for page 159
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation tobacco control programs increased, beginning with California and then expanding to all states. California launched the first statewide comprehensive tobacco control program in 1990, one and a half years after the passage of Proposition 99. This landmark referendum mandated an increase in state tobacco taxes and directed 20 percent of the revenues to tobacco control programs (Bal 1998; Glantz and Balbach 2000; Najera 1998). At that time, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was already preparing to launch the seven-year national American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST) program. In 1991, the ASSIST program funded community-level interventions to prevent tobacco use in 17 states (NCI 2005; Stillman et al. 2003). By the mid-1990s, every state in the United States had some funding for comprehensive tobacco control, either from the ASSIST program or from the Initiatives to Mobilize for the Prevention and Control of Tobacco Use (IMPACT) program, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition, from 1994 through 2000, some states1 also received funding for tobacco control efforts from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) SmokeLess States program (Gerlach and Larkin 2005; Tauras et al. 2005). In addition to educational and cessation programs, the funding supported statewide coalitions of individuals and organizations that pursued action strategies to strengthen tobacco control policies. The ASSIST program promoted three types of interventions: program services, policy changes, and mass media. However, the ASSIST program guidelines stated that “efforts to achieve priority public policy objectives should take precedence over efforts to support service delivery” (NCI 2005, p.23). Mass media initiatives were intended to support those policy changes. The four ASSIST program priority policy areas were eliminating environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), increasing tobacco excise taxes, limiting tobacco advertising and promotion, and reducing youth access (NCI 2005). Evaluation of Comprehensive State Programs In 2005, the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) released a summary of the literature on evidence of the effectiveness of state tobacco control programs (Kuiper et al. 2005). Organized by major reviews and five outcome indicators (tobacco-related mortality, prevalence, consumption, cessation, and smoke-free legislation and policy), the results are generally organized by state. The evidence provided can be considered a guide to state health departments for measuring the success of their comprehensive 1 Smokeless States funded all states and the District of Columbia in its final round of grants in 2000.
OCR for page 160
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation tobacco control programs. Of the five indicators of success, one is a health outcome—tobacco-related mortality—and three are markers that lead to improved health outcomes: decreases in smoking prevalence, decreases in consumption of tobacco products, and smoking cessation. The fifth indicator, smoke-free legislation and policy, is an intermediate outcome that alters the environment that supports tobacco use. This review appeared six years after the publication of the CDC’s Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs. Published in 1999, Best Practices had concluded that the evidence was sufficiently compelling to encourage all states to pursue comprehensive programs. This conclusion was drawn on the basis of analyses of the excise tax-funded state programs in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maine, as well as the agency’s experience in providing assistance to four other states: Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Texas. The 2005 review reiterates the effectiveness of these programs, while also documenting the successes of other state programs that have appeared since 1999. Over the past decade and a half, a number of investigators have tried to assess the contribution of comprehensive state programs to policy changes and reductions in smoking (DHHS 2000; Elder et al. 1996; Siegel 2002; Stillman et al. 2003; Tauras et al. 2005; Wakefield and Chaloupka 2000; Warner 2000). By design, a comprehensive tobacco control program consists of several elements (e.g., antismoking media campaigns, counseling services, and school-based prevention initiatives), and some authors have focused on evaluating the effectiveness of individual program components. Later in this chapter, the committee refers, for instance, to several studies that have assessed the impacts of state-sponsored antismoking media campaigns on smoking prevalence and changes in smoking-related beliefs. This section reviews studies that have looked at the effects of comprehensive programs as a whole. One study that evaluated state programs throughout the country found that a program’s intensity had a very large negative correlation with the prevalence of current smoking (r = −0.81, p < .0001) and a large positive correlation with the quit rate (r = 0.82, p < .0001) among adults 30 to 39 years of age (Jemal et al. 2003). Another study determined that states with better-funded programs have lower prevalence and consumption rates (Tauras et al. 2005). However, many states have substantially cut their tobacco control programs’ budgets in recent years. Description of Programs Over the course of the 1990s, several other states—including Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, and Oregon—followed California’s lead and developed their own comprehensive tobacco control programs (Wakefield
OCR for page 161
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation and Chaloupka 2000). Studies reviewing the effects of each of these states’ efforts have been published, and many of these are listed in CDC’s 2005 literature summary (Kuiper et al. 2005). As the first two states in the country to implement comprehensive programs, California and Massachusetts have received a particularly large amount of attention. A specific examination of these two states’ pioneering efforts reveals that comprehensive state programs can be effective in reducing tobacco use and tobacco-related disease, especially when they are fully-funded and operational. California In November 1988, California voters passed Proposition 99, which increased the state tobacco tax by 25 cents per pack of cigarettes. One year later, the California Assembly passed legislation that distributed the revenue earned from the tobacco tax increase as follows: 35 percent for hospital services, 20 percent for a health education account, 10 percent for physician services, 5 percent for research, and 5 percent for environmental conservation concerns (25 percent of the funds remained unallocated). Funds from the health education and research accounts were used for the creation of a statewide tobacco control program. The California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP), the first of its kind in the country, debuted in the spring of 1990 (Bal 1998; Najera 1998; TEROC 2000). Together, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and the California Department of Education (CDE), along with the University of California, support a decentralized network of local health departments (LHDs), schools, researchers, and competitive grantees that forms the core of the CTCP. The CDE’s Healthy Kids Program Office oversees the program’s school-based components, whereas the University of California administers various research activities through its Tobacco Related Disease Research Program. The Tobacco Control Section of CDHS, which receives approximately two-thirds of the available funds from the Health Education Account, coordinates the public health elements of the program. These elements include programs conducted at the local level by LHDs and community organizations; a statewide media campaign; cessation counseling services (such as the California Smokers’ Helpline); a materials clearinghouse; and four networks that seek to better integrate California’s African American, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic populations into the state’s tobacco control efforts. California has also coordinated its efforts with other tobacco control initiatives, including the RWJF’s SmokeLess States program (CDHS 1998; State of California 2004; TEROC 2000, 2003). Throughout the 1990s, the CTCP’s funding fluctuated dramatically. Between 1989–1990 and 1995–1996, for instance, the program experienced
OCR for page 162
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation a 60 percent reduction in funding (from $131.3 million to $53.4 million). In addition, although the CTCP’s budget more than doubled between 1995–1996 and 1997–1998 (from $53.4 million to $140.7 million), funding declined yet again in 1998–1999 as well as in 1999–2000 (Independent Evaluation Consortium 2002). In its first few years, before these major budget fluctuations, the CTCP embraced a mix of policy, media, and program interventions to address a range of factors contributing to tobacco use (CDHS 1998). By 1993, however, looming budget cuts necessitated a more focused approach. Anticipating funding reductions, program administrators revised the CTCP’s structure and priorities to streamline the state’s tobacco control efforts. Administrators refocused the program’s activities into four clearly defined areas: (1) reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, (2) countering the influence of the tobacco industry, (3) reducing youth access to tobacco products, and (4) providing cessation services (CDHS 1998). Since then, however, the CTCP has suffered additional reductions in funding, including a budget cut of 30 percent ($46 million) in FY 2002. Consequently, the gap between tobacco control funding and tobacco industry spending has widened considerably, especially in comparison to the more intensive and better-funded early years of the program. By 2002, California—once the trailblazer in comprehensive tobacco control programming—had fallen to 20th in state rankings for per-capita funding for tobacco control (TEROC 2003). Massachusetts Massachusetts modeled much of its tobacco control program after that of the CTCP. In November 1992, Massachusetts voters passed a ballot initiative (commonly known as Question 1) that—like Proposition 99 in California four years earlier—increased the state tobacco tax by 25 cents per pack of cigarettes. Although the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits the earmarking of tax revenue (as the California legislature had done with money earned from its tobacco tax increase), the drafters of Question 1 composed language that urged—but did not mandate—the state to allocate revenue collected from the tobacco tax to a statewide tobacco control program. Following passage of the initiative, Massachusetts legislators soon allocated revenue from the tobacco tax to a newly created Health Protection Fund for the financing of a tobacco-control program (Cady 1998; Connolly and Robbins 1998; Nicholl 1998). Administered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program (MTCP) began operating in October 1993 with the launch of a mass media campaign, which used a wide spectrum of media, including television, radio, newspapers, and billboards, to disseminate its antismoking message throughout the state. In the follow-
OCR for page 163
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation ing months, the MTCP started implementing additional tobacco control initiatives with an emphasis on three priority areas: (1) preventing youth from starting to smoke, (2) reducing smoking prevalence among adults, and (3) reducing nonsmokers’ exposure to ETS. Massachusetts, like California, embraced a localized approach to achieve these goals. Although the MTCP first managed local programs by program type, it soon restructured its operations by organizing localities into six regional networks. Representatives from local tobacco control programs, along with MTCP representatives, began meeting monthly within their respective regional networks to ensure statewide cohesion and better facilitate exchanges of information. In addition, the MTCP has funded community coalitions to organize mobilization efforts, as well as boards of health and LHDs, to enact and enforce tobacco control regulations. Statewide programming, meanwhile, has included the media campaign and the Try to Stop Resource Center, which offers the Smoker’s Quitline, a website (www.trytostop.org) for smokers seeking cessation support, and educational materials. The Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control at the University of Massachusetts Medical School performs research on tobacco use and nicotine dependence (Connolly and Robbins 1998; Hamilton et al. 2002; MDPH 2002a, 2002b). Massachusetts has also mirrored California in coordinating its activities with other tobacco control initiatives. From 1991 through 1999, for instance, Massachusetts was 1 of 17 states in the country to participate in the NCI’s ASSIST program. Massachusetts participated in various training programs and information exchanges with its fellow ASSIST states, as well as with California and other states with tobacco control programs (Celebucki et al. 1998). As with the CTCP, the MTCP’s early years represented its most intensive period of funding and activity. From 1994 to 1997, for example, the $7.09 per-capita spent on tobacco control in Massachusetts represented the highest investment of its kind in the country. Budgetary cuts have threatened the effectiveness of the MTCP throughout its history, however, and even in the first 3 years of its existence, the MTCP experienced a pattern of decreasing expenditures (Wakefield and Chaloupka 2000). These early reductions, however, pale in comparison with the cuts that occurred at the beginning of the 2000s. Although funds from the MSA helped increase the MTCP’s budget in FY 2000, funding levels dropped again in FY 2001. In addition, between FY 2002 and FY 2003, as the state faced acute budget shortfalls, it decreased the MTCP’s budget from $34 million to $5.5 million. These cuts resulted in a serious reduction of the MTCP’s activities, including the elimination of almost all local programming and the discontinuation of the media campaign. Since these cuts occurred, surviving elements of the program have operated at a level far below that of the previous decade (Hamilton et al. 2003; MDPH 2002a, 2006).
OCR for page 164
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Description of Evaluations From the start, both California and Massachusetts incorporated evaluation mechanisms into their tobacco control programs. California developed a multidimensional evaluation structure that comprised local program assessments, in-house surveys, and an independent review. Through the “10 percent” clause, which requires local grantees to devote 10 percent of their program budgets to evaluation, the state can review the effects of programs carried out at the local level, where most CTCP activities take place. The CDHS’s in-house data-gathering efforts, meanwhile, have included the Behavior Risk Factor Survey, the California Adult Tobacco Survey, and the California Youth Tobacco Survey. CDHS contracts with the University of California San Diego (UCSD) to operate the much larger California Tobacco Survey (CTS). UCSD conducts this survey every 3 years through interviews of individuals from randomly selected households, and reaches approximately 78,000 adults and 6,000 youth. The CTS provides CDHS with statewide smoking prevalence rate estimates (broken down into county and regional estimates) as well as data on attitudinal changes (Russell 1998). The CTCP’s enabling legislation mandated an independent evaluation of the program. The Gallup Organization has conducted this independent review, subcontracting various elements of its evaluation to Stanford University and the University of Southern California (USC). In their reviews, Gallup and its subcontractors have examined the overall impact of the program as well as the relative effectiveness of its various components (media campaigns, local initiatives, school-based programs, etc.). Other surveys used in the evaluation of the CTCP include the CDHS’s annual survey of the rate of illegal sales of tobacco products to minors and occasional surveys targeting specific issues, such as the Field Institute poll on the number of smoke-free bars in the state. The Evaluation Task Force, with members from across the United States and Canada, advises the state on evaluation efforts (Independent Evaluation Consortium 2002; Russell 1998). Massachusetts has used a similar multidimensional approach to evaluating the MTCP’s success in reducing tobacco use. From October 1993 through March 1994, MTCP conducted the Massachusetts Tobacco Survey, a baseline survey that collected data on tobacco use among adults and youth through randomized telephone interviews. Beginning in March 1995, MTCP began conducting the Massachusetts Adult Tobacco Survey, a monthly follow-up cross-sectional survey, to monitor changes in tobacco use and related attitudes. In addition, along with the RWJF, the MTCP funded longitudinal surveys to evaluate the program’s impact on adults and youth. Finally, like California, Massachusetts commissioned an independent assessment of its tobacco control program. In evaluating the success of the
OCR for page 165
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation MTCP, Abt Associates Inc. has reviewed data on smoking prevalence, quit attempts, smoking cessation, exposure to ETS, incidents of tobacco sales to minors, and changes in attitudes regarding tobacco use and tobacco-control policy (Hamilton et al. 2002). Frequent budget cuts, however, have impacted the regularity of the MTCP’s surveillance efforts, restricting the extent and consistency of program evaluation (Hamilton et al. 2002). Findings Regarding Effects The results of the evaluations and surveys mentioned above, along with the findings from a number of peer-reviewed studies, indicate that California and Massachusetts have made progress in their tobacco control efforts; this progress is most notable when the respective programs have been well-funded and fully-implemented. On the basis of data from the CDC’s Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, Figure 5-1 illustrates the successes that both states have had in reducing tobacco use in comparison with the rest of the country. Figure 5-1 shows that a 23.2 percent reduction in the prevalence of current smoking in California took place between 1990 (the first full year of the state’s tobacco control program) and 2005, whereas the reduction in the U.S. median during the same period was FIGURE 5-1 Percent reduction in current adult smokers in California and Massachusetts from the first year of their tobacco control programs (1990 and 1994, respectively) to 2005 (the year for which the most current data are available) compared with the percent reduction in the U.S. median for the same two time periods, based on data from the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System. SOURCE: (CDC 2006a).
OCR for page 166
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation 10.9 percent. In Massachusetts, meanwhile, a 14.6 percent reduction took place between 1994 (the first full year of the implementation of its tobacco control program) and 2005. During those same years, the U.S. median experienced a smaller reduction of 9.7 percent. California During the CTCP’s early years, California experienced significant declines in the prevalence rate of smoking among adults. To determine whether the declines could be attributed to the program or to alternative factors (e.g., national trends or demographic changes) Siegel and colleagues (2000) compared data for California with data for the rest of the country. They found that California’s rate of decline in adult smoking prevalence between 1990 and 1994 was 0.39 percent per year, whereas the rate of decline in the rest of the United States was only 0.05 percent per year. Restriction of the analysis to various demographic groups did not significantly affect the results. Consequently, Siegel and colleagues suggested that the greater reduction in adult smoking prevalence in California in comparison to that of the rest of the country in the early 1990s could be due to the implementation of the CTCP (Siegel et al. 2000). It is important to note, however, that California’s adult smoking prevalence rate has remained relatively level since the mid-1990s (CDHS 2002).2 In an evaluation of the CTCP’s activities from 1989 to 1996, Pierce and colleagues (1998) divided the program’s first 7 years into two distinct periods. They found that during Period 1 (January 1989 to June 1993), adult smoking prevalence and per-capita cigarette consumption declined more than 50 percent faster than in previous years and more than 40 percent faster than in the rest of the United States. During Period 2 (July 1993 to December 1996), however, the rate of decline for both adult smoking prevalence and per-capita cigarette consumption slowed, with the prevalence declining at only 15 percent and consumption declining at only 34 percent of the Period 1 rate of decline. Furthermore, although the rate of decline in cigarette consumption remained substantially higher than the rate recorded in the rest of the United States during Period 2, California’s rate of decline in adult smoking prevalence no longer exceeded that of the rest of the United States. This slowdown coincided with decreased financing of tobacco control programs by the state (Pierce et al. 1998). Fichtenberg and Glantz (2000), meanwhile, analyzed the CTCP’s effectiveness in relation to the rate of decline of deaths attributable to heart 2 The increase in smoking prevalence in 1996 is generally considered to be a result of the fact that the CDC revised its definition of the term “current smoker,” which resulted in the inclusion of more “occasional smokers.”
OCR for page 167
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation disease in California. They found that between 1989 and 1992, both percapita cigarette consumption rates and the annual rate of mortality from heart disease declined significantly more in California than in the rest of the country. Reflecting the trends noted above, however, the rates of decline slowed noticeably after 1992. Consequently, Fichtenberg and Glantz concluded that the CTCP was initially effective in reducing deaths from heart disease but that cutbacks in the scale and funding of the program weakened further progress (Fichtenberg and Glantz 2000). The last independent evaluation of the CTCP to be released by the Gallup Organization and its partners (Stanford and USC) assessed the program’s overall impact in relation to Californians’ exposure to its various elements and messages, as reported in surveys conducted in 1996–1997, 1998, and 2000. The evaluation concluded that the CTCP has had an impact on behavior, as counties with greater exposure to the program showed better outcomes than counties with less exposure, including a greater decline in adult smoking prevalence between 1996 and 2000, lower perceived access to cigarettes among 10th graders, and an increase from 1996 to 2000 in the proportion of adults with complete smoking bans in their homes (Independent Evaluation Consortium 2002). The CTCP has also had success in reducing tobacco use among youth. A study released in 2005 associated the CTCP with reduced uptake and smoking rates among adolescents and young adults. The authors found that the rate of “ever puffing” declined by 70 percent among 12- to 13-year-olds from 1990 to 2002, by 53 percent among 14- to15-year-olds from 1992 to 2002, and by 34 percent among 16- to 17-year-olds from 1996 to 2002. The study identified similar patterns for smoking experimentation (smoking one or more cigarettes ever) and established smoking (smoking more than 100 cigarettes in a lifetime). Although the smoking prevalence among young adults (ages 18 to 24 years) remained constant in the rest of the country from 1992 to 2002, the prevalence among young adults in California decreased significantly (by 18 percent) from 1998–1999 to 2001–2002 (Pierce et al. 2005). Gilpin and colleagues found a similar behavioral trend when they compared the results of two 3-year longitudinal studies (1993–1996 and 1996–1999) that measured smoking initiation rates at the baseline among California adolescents who had never smoked. The authors identified a lower rate of initiation at follow-up in the cohort of the second study than in that of the first study (Gilpin et al. 2005). Data published by CDHS indicate that California has continued to make progress in reducing tobacco use among youth. According to CDHS, from 2000 to 2004, the 30-day smoking prevalence rate among high school students in California decreased from 21.6 percent to 13.2 percent (CDHS 2005). Figure 5-2 shows that although the rate of decline in smoking prevalence among youth in California mirrored the rate of decline in the rest of
OCR for page 260
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Gilpin EA, Lee L, Pierce JP. 2005. How have smoking risk factors changed with recent declines in California adolescent smoking? Addiction 100(1):117-125. Gilpin E, Lee L, Pierce JP, Tang H, Lloyd J. 2004. Support for protection from second hand smoke: California 2002. Tobacco Control 13(1):96. Givel M, Glantz S. 2000. Failure to defend a successful state tobacco control program: policy lessons from Florida. American Journal of Public Health 90(5). Givel S, Dearlove J, Glantz S. 2001. Tobacco Policy Making in California 1999-2001: Stalled and Adrift. San Francisco, CA: Center for Tobacco Research and Education (University of California). Glantz S, Balbach E. 2000. Tobacco War: Inside the California Battles. Berkeley: University of California Press. Glasgow RE, Cummings KM, Hyland A. 1997. Relationship of worksite smoking policy to changes in employee tobacco use: findings from COMMIT. Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation. Tobacco Control 6(Suppl 2):S44-S48. Glynn TJ. 1989. Essential elements of school-based smoking prevention programs. Journal of School Health 59(5):181-188. Gortmaker SL, Walker DK, Jacobs FH, Ruch-Ross H. 1982. Parental smoking and the risk of childhood asthma. American Journal of Public Health 72(6):574-579. Gross CP, Soffer B, Bach PB, Rajkumar R, Forman HP. 2002. State expenditures for tobacco-control programs and the tobacco settlement. New England Journal of Medicine 347(14):1080-1086. Gruber J. 2001. Tobacco at the crossroads: the past and future of smoking regulation in the United States. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(2):193-212. Halperin AC, Rigotti NA, Rothstein WG, Rajapaksa S. 2003. US public universities’ compliance with recommended tobacco-control policies. Journal of American College Health 51(5):181. Hamilton VH, Levinton C, St-Pierre Y, Grimard F. 1997. The effect of tobacco tax cuts on cigarette smoking in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 156(2):187-191. Hamilton W, Norton G, Weintraub J. 2002. Independent Evaluation of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, 7th Annual Report—January 1994 to June 2000. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. Hamilton WL, Biener L, Rodger CN. 2005. Who supports tobacco excise taxes? Factors associated with towns’ and individuals’ support in Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 11(4):333-340. Hamilton WL, Rodger CN, Chen X, Njobe TK, Kling R, Norton G. 2003. Independent Evaluation of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. Eighth Annual Report: January 1994–June 2001. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. Hamlett-Berry K. 2004. Smoking cessation policy in the VA health care system: Where have we been and where are we going? In: Isaccs S, ed. VA in the Vanguard: Building on Sucess in Smoking Cessation: Proceedings of a Conference Held September 21, 2004 in San Francisco, California. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs. Pp. 7-40. Hammond D, McDonald PW, Fong GT, Borland R. 2004. Do smokers know how to quit? Knowledge and perceived effectiveness of cessation assistance as predictors of cessation behaviour. Addiction 99(8):1042-1048. Hammond SK, Emmons KM. 2005. Inmate exposure to secondhand smoke in correctional facilities and the impact of smoking restrictions. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 15(3):205-211. Hanewinkel R, Asshauer M. 2004. Fifteen-month follow-up results of a school-based life-skills approach to smoking prevention. Health Education Research 19(2):125-137. Hansen W. 1988. Theory and Implementation of the Social Influence Model of Primary Prevention. Prevention Research Findings: 1988. OSAP Prevention Monograph-3. Washington, DC: Office of Substance Abuse Prevention (U.S. HHS).
OCR for page 261
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Hansen WB, Malotte CK, Fielding JE. 1988. Evaluation of a tobacco and alcohol abuse prevention curriculum for adolescents. Health Education Quarterly 15(1):93-114. Harris JE, Chan SW. 1999. The continuum-of-addiction: cigarette smoking in relation to price among Americans aged 15-29. Health Economics 8(1):81-86. Hay JW. 1991. The Harm They Do to Others: A Primer on the External Costs of Drug Abuse. Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Pp. 200-225. Hennrikus D, Pentel PR, Sandell SD. 2003. Preferences and practices among renters regarding smoking restrictions in apartment buildings. Tobacco Control 12(2):189-194. HEW (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1964. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Public Health Service. Hill KG, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Abbott RD, Guo J. 2005. Family influences on the risk of daily smoking initiation. J Adolesc Health 37(3):202-210. Hopkins DP, Briss PA, Ricard CJ, Husten CG, Carande-Kulis VG, Fielding JE, Alao MO, McKenna JW, Sharp DJ, Harris JR, Woollery TA, Harris KW. 2001. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(2 Suppl):16-66. Hu TW, Ren QF, Keeler TE, Bartlett J. 1995a. The demand for cigarettes in California and behavioural risk factors. Health Economics 4(1):7-14. Hu TW, Sung HY, Keeler TE. 1995b. The state antismoking campaign and the industry response: the effects of advertising on cigarette consumption in California. American Economic Review 85(2):85-90. Hyland A, Higbee C, Li Q, Bauer JE, Giovino GA, Alford T, Cummings KM. 2005. Access to low-taxed cigarettes deters smoking cessation attempts. American Journal of Public Health 95(6):994-995. Hyland A, Li Q, Bauer JE, Giovino GA, Steger C, Cummings KM. 2004. Predictors of cessation in a cohort of current and former smokers followed over 13 years. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 6(Suppl 3):S363-S369. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2002. Volume 83 Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. Web Page. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf; accessed June 8, 2007. Independent Evaluation Consortium. 2002. Final Report. Independent Evaluation of the California Tobacco Control Prevention and Education Program: Waves 1, 2, and 3 (1996–2000). Rockville, MD: The Gallup Organization. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1988. The Future of Public Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM. 1994a. Growing Up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM. 1994b. Growing Up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM/NRC (National Research Council). 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Jackson C, Henriksen L. 1997. Do as I say: parent smoking, antismoking socialization, and smoking onset among children. Addictive Behavior 22(1):107-114. Jemal A, Cokkinides VE, Shafey O, Thun MJ. 2003. Lung cancer trends in young adults: an early indicator of progress in tobacco control (United States). Cancer Causes Control 14(6):579-585.
OCR for page 262
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Johnson CA, Pentz MA, Weber MD, Dwyer JH, Baer N, MacKinnon DP, Hansen WB, Flay BR. 1990. Relative effectiveness of comprehensive community programming for drug abuse prevention with high-risk and low-risk adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58(4):447-456. Jordaan ER, Ehrlich RI, Potter P. 1999. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children: household and community determinants. Archives of Environmental Health 54(5):319-327. Kandula NR, Kersey M, Lurie N. 2004. Assuring the health of immigrants: what the leading health indicators tell us. Annual Review of Public Health 25:357-376. Keeler TE, Hu TW, Barnett PG, Manning WG. 1993. Taxation, regulation, and addiction: a demand function for cigarettes based on time-series evidence. Journal of Health Economics 12(1):1-18. Kempner M. 2005, June 6. UPS reviews cigarette shipments. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Business. Kerr M, Stattin H. 2000. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology 36(3):366-380. Kesich GD. 2004, November 18. UPS, others sue over Maine tobacco law; the suit challenges the rewuirement that delivery driver verify age, identity of tobacco recipients. Portland Press Herald. Local & State. Klepp KI, Halper A, Perry CL. 1986. The efficacy of peer leaders in drug abuse prevention. Journal of School Health 56(9):407-411. Klevens RM, Giovino GA, Peddicord JP, Nelson DE, Mowery P, Grummer-Strawn L. 1995. The Association Between Veteran Status and Cigarette-Smoking Behaviors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 11(4):245-250. Kuiper N, Nelson D, Schooley M. 2005. Evidence of Effectiveness: A Summary of State Tobacco Control Program Evaluation Literature. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Kulig JW. 2005. Tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs: the role of the pediatrician in prevention, identification, and management of substance abuse. Pediatrics 115(3):816-821. Leverett M, Ashe M, Gerard S, Jenson J, Woollery T. 2002. Tobacco use: the impact of prices. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30(3 Suppl):88-95. Levinson A, Pérez-Stable E, Espinoza P, Flores E, Byers TE. 2004. Latinos report less use of pharmaceutical aids when trying to quit smoking. American Journal of Prevtive Medicine 26(2):105-111. Levy DT, Romano E, Mumford E. 2005. The relationship of smoking cessation to sociodemographic characteristics, smoking intensity, and tobacco control policies. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 7(3):387-396. Levy DT, Romano E, Mumford EA. 2004. Recent trends in home and work smoking bans. Tobacco Control 13(3):258-263. Liang L, Chaloupka F, Nichter M, Clayton R. 2003. Prices, policies and youth smoking, May 2001. Addiction 98(Suppl 1):105-122. Loukas A, Garcia M, Gottlieb NH. 2006. Texas college students’ opinions of no-smoking policies, secondhand smoke, and smoking in public places. Journal of American College Health 1(55):27-32. Lowenstein S, Tomlinson D, Koziol-McLain J, Prochazka A. 1995. Smoking habits of emergency department patients: an opportunity for disease prevention. Academic Emergency Medicine 2:165-171.
OCR for page 263
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Luepker RV, Murray DM, Jacobs DR Jr, Mittelmark MB, Bracht N, Carlaw R, Crow R, Elmer P, Finnegan J, Folsom AR, et al. 1994. Community education for cardiovascular disease prevention: risk factor changes in the Minnesota Heart Health Program. American Journal of Public Health 84(9):1383-1393. Ma GX, Tan Y, Toubbeh JI, Su X, Shive SE, Lan Y. 2004. Acculturation and smoking behavior in Asian-American populations. Health Education Research 19(6):615-625. Manning WG, Keeler EB, Newhouse JP, Sloss EM, Wasserman J. 1989. The taxes of sin: do smokers and drinkers pay their way? Journal of the American Medical Assocation 261(11):1604-1609. Mannino DM, Siegel M, Husten C, Rose D, Etzel R. 1996. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and health effects in children: results from the 1991 National Health Interview Survey. Tobacco Control 5(1):13-18. McPhillips-Tangum C, Bocchino C, Carreon R, Erceg C, Rehm B. 2004. Addressing tobacco in managed care: results of the 2002 survey. Preventing Chronic Disease 1(4): 1-11. MDPH (Massachusetts Department of Public Health). 2002a. MTCP Background. Web Page. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dph/mtcp/background/background.htm; accessed June 23, 2006. MDPH. 2002b. MTCP Statewide Services. Web Page. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dph/mtcp/programs/statewide.htm; accessed July 20, 2006. MDPH. 2006, June 22. Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program Accomplishments. Web Page. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dph/mtcp/reports/accomplishments.pdf; accessed June 22, 2006. Michel L. 2005, April 4. Internet cigarette sales take hit. Buffalo News. News. Miller A. 1998. Designing an effective counteradvertising campaign—Massachusetts. Cancer 83(12 Suppl Robert):2742-2745. Miller DR, Kalman D, Ren XS, Lee AF, Niu Z, Kazis LE. 2001. Health Behaviors of Veterans in the VHA: Tobacco Use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Office of Quality and Performance and VHA Health Assessment Project Center for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research. Mittelmark MB, Luepker RV, Jacobs DR, Bracht NF, Carlaw RW, Crow RS, Finnegan J, Grimm RH, Jeffery RW, Kline FG, et al. 1986. Community-wide prevention of cardiovascular disease: education strategies of the Minnesota Heart Health Program. Preventive Medicine 15(1):1-17. The Monitor’s View. 2005, July 7. Snuffing out tobacco in prisons. Christian Science Monitor. P. 8. Moskowitz JM, Lin Z, Hudes ES. 2000. The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking cessation. American Journal of Public Health 90(5):757-761. Murray DM, Hannan PJ, Jacobs DR, McGovern PJ, Schmid L, Baker WL, Gray C. 1994. Assessing intervention effects in the Minnesota Heart Health Program. American Journal of Epidemiology 139(1):91-103. Najera AP. 1998. History of successful ballot initiatives—California. Cancer 83(12 Suppl Robert):2680-2684. National Journal Group. 2005, June 20. Efforts to regulate internet tobacco sales may be revived. National Journal’s Congress Daily. NCI (National Cancer Institute). 2005. ASSIST: shaping the future of tobacco prevention and control. NCI. Tobacco Control Monograph Series. Vol. 8, No. NIH Publication Number 05-5645. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Nicholl J. 1998. Tobacco tax initiatives to prevent tobacco use: a study of eight statewide campaigns. Cancer 83(12 Suppl Robert):2666-2679.
OCR for page 264
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Niederdeppe J, Farrelly MC, Haviland ML. 2004. Confirming “truth”: more evidence of a successful tobacco countermarketing campaign in Florida. American Journal of Public Health 94(2):255-257. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2006a. Final Statement: National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement, Tobacco Use: Prevention, Cessation, and Control. Web Page. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/2006/TobaccoStatementFinal090506.pdf; accessed January 18, 2007a. NIH. 2006b. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement. Web Page. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/2006/2006TobaccoSOS029html.htm; accessed July 26, 2006. O’Byrne KK, Haddock CK, Poston WS. 2002. Parenting style and adolescent smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health 30(6):418-425. Older Americans Report. 2005, August 5. City’s housing authority bans smoking in senior apartments. Older Americans Report. Orleans CT. 1993. Treating Nicotine Dependence in Medical Settings: A Stepped-Care Model. Orleans CT, Slade J, Editors. Nicotine Addiciton: Principles and Management. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 145-161. Orleans CT, Fishman J. 2000. Tailored communications for smoking cessation. Tobacco Control 9(Suppl I):i49. Osterwalder J, Beeman DE. 2005, April 13. Fresh air: officials to consider tougher rules; no vacancy for smokers; smoke-free housing debate forces leaders to pit personal rights vs. health concerns. The Press Enterprise. A. p. 1. OTRU (Ontario Tobacco Research Unit). 2006. The Smoke-Free Ontario Act: Extend Protection to Children in Vehicles. Web Page. Available at: http://www.otru.org/pdf/updates/update_aug2006.pdf; accessed January 19, 2007. Ozer EM, Adams SH, Gardner LR, Mailloux DE, Wibbelsman CJ, Irwin CE Jr. 2004. Provider self-efficacy and the screening of adolescents for risky health behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health 35(2):101-107. Parmet WE, Banthin C. 2005. Public health protection and the commerce clause: controlling tobacco in the Internet Age. New Mexico Law Review 35:81-122. Patrick S, Marsh R. 2001. Current tobacco policies in U.S. adult male prisons. The Social Science Journal 38:27-37. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. 2000. Planning an effective anti-smoking mass media campaign targeting adolescents. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 6(3):80-94. Pechmann C, Slater MD. 2005. Social Marketing Messages That May Motivate Irresponsible Behavior. Ratneshwar S. Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. New York: Routledge. Pentz MA, MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH, Wang EY, Hansen WB, Flay BR, Johnson CA. 1989. Longitudinal effects of the midwestern prevention project on regular and experimental smoking in adolescents. Preventive Medicine 18(2):304-321. Perry C, Kelder S, Klepp K. 1994. Community-wide cardiovascular disease prevention in young people. European Journal of Public Health 4:188-194. Perry CL, Kelder K-I, Siller C. 1989. Community-wide strategies for cardiovascular health: the Minnesota heart health program youth program. Health Education Research 4: 87-101. Perry CL, Kelder SH, Murray DM, Klepp KI. 1992. Communitywide smoking prevention: long-term outcomes of the Minnesota Heart Health Program and the Class of 1989 Study. American Journal of Public Health 82(9):1210-1216. Peterson AV Jr, Kealey KA, Mann SL, Marek PM, Sarason IG. 2000. Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project: long-term randomized trial in school-based tobacco use prevention—results on smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92(24):1979-1991.
OCR for page 265
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Pierce J, Gilpin E, Emery S, Farkas A, Zhu S, Choi W, Berry C, Distefan J, White M, Soroko S, Navarro A. 1998. Tobacco Control in California: Who’s Winning the War? An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989–1996. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego. Pierce JP, White MM, Gilpin EA. 2005. Adolescent smoking decline during California’s tobacco control programme. Tobacco Control 14(3):207-212. Pinilla J. 2002. [Tobacco taxes, prices and demand for tobacco products: a comparative analysis]. Gaceta Sanitaria 16(5):425-435. Pizacani BA, Martin DP, Stark MJ, Koepsell TD, Thompson B, Diehr P. 2004. A prospective study of household smoking bans and subsequent cessation related behaviour: the role of stage of change. Tobacco Control 13(1):23-28. Popham WJ, Potter LD, Bal DG, Johnson MD, Duerr JM, Quinn V. 1993. Do anti-smoking media campaigns help smokers quit?. Public Health Report. 108(4):510-513. Popham WJ, Potter LD, Hetrick MA, Muthen LK, Duerr JM, Johnson MD. 1994a. Effectiveness of the California 1990-1991 Tobacco Education Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 10(6):319-326. Popham WJ, Potter LD, Hetrick MA, Muthen LK, Duerr JM, Johnson MD. 1994b. Effectiveness of the California 1990–1991 tobacco education media campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 10(6):319-326. Powell LM, Tauras JA, Ross H. 2005. The importance of peer effects, cigarette prices and tobacco control policies for youth smoking behavior. Journal of Health Economics 24(5):950-968. Public Health Service. 2000. Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Public Health Service Pub. Repace J. 2000. Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable. Tobacco Control 9(1):98. Rigotti N. 2001. Chapter 6—reducing the supply of tobacco to youths. Regulating Tobacco. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 143-175. Ross H, Chaloupka FJ. 2003. The effect of cigarette prices on youth smoking. Health Economics 12(3):217-230. RTI International. 2004. First Annual Independent Evaluation of New York’s Tobacco Control Program. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. RTI International. 2005. Second Annual Independent Evaluation of New York’s Tobacco Control Program. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Russell CM. 1998. Evaluation: methods and strategy for evaluation—California. Cancer 83(12 Suppl Robert):2755-2759. Schauffler HH, Barker DC, Orleans CT. 2001. Medicaid coverage for tobacco-dependence treatments. Health Affairs (Millwood) 20(1):298-303. Schoenmarklin S, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. 2004. Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke into Condominiums, Apartments and Other Multi-Unit Dwellings. St. Paul, MN: Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. Schroeder SA. 2006. Should emergency physicians help smokers quit? Annals of Emergency Medicine 48(4):415-416. Scollo M, and Lal A. 2004. Summary of Studies Assessing the Economic Effects of SmokeFree Policies in the Hospitality Industry. Web Page. Available at: http://www.vctc.org.au/tc-res/Hospitalitysummary.pdf; accessed February 23, 2005. Scollo M, Younie S, Wakefield M, Freeman J, Icasiano F. 2003. Impact of tobacco tax reforms on tobacco prices and tobacco use in Australia. Tobacco Control 12(Suppl 2): ii59-ii66. Siahpush M, Borland R, Scollo M. 2003. Factors associated with smoking cessation in a national sample of Australians. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 5(4):597-602.
OCR for page 266
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Siegel M. 2002. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: a review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annual Review of Public Health 23:45-71. Siegel M, Biener L. 2000. The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. American Journal of Public Health 90(3):380-386. Siegel M, Mowery PD, Pechacek TP, Strauss WJ, Schooley MW, Merritt RK, Novotny TE, Giovino GA, Eriksen MP. 2000. Trends in adult cigarette smoking in California compared with the rest of the United States, 1978–1994. American Journal of Public Health 90(3):372-379. Simons-Morton B, Chen R, Abroms L, Haynie DL. 2004. Latent growth curve analyses of peer and parent influences on smoking progression among early adolescents. Health Psychology 23(6):612-621. Skara S, Sussman S. 2003. A review of 25 long-term adolescent tobacco and other drug use prevention program evaluations. Preventive Medicine 37(5):451-474. Sloan FA, Carlisle ES, Rattliff JR, Trogdon J. 2005. Determinants of states’ allocations of the master settlement agreement payments. Journal of Health and Political Policy Law 30(4):643-86. Sloan FA, Mathews CA, Trogdon JG. 2004. Impacts of the Master Settlement Agreement on the tobacco industry. Tobacco Control 13(4):356-361. Sly DF, Heald GR, Ray S. 2001a. The Florida “truth” anti-tobacco media evaluation: design, first year results, and implications for planning future state media evaluations.[see comment]. Tobacco Control 10(1):9-15. Sly DF, Hopkins RS, Trapido E, Ray S. 2001b. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. American Journal of Public Health 91(2):233-238. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. 2002. Evidence of the dose effects of an antitobacco counteradvertising campaign. Preventive Medicine. 35(5):511-518. Smith CM, Pristach CA, Cartagena M. 1999. Obligatory cessation of smoking by psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatric Service. 50(1):91-94. Smith E, Swisher J, Vicary J, et al. 2004. Evaluation of life skills training and infused-life skills training in a rural setting: outcomes at two years. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 48(1):51-70. Smokefree Apartment House Registry. 2004. News Release: City Creates Non-Smoking Sections in New Affordable Housing. Web Page. Available at: http://www.smokefreeapartments.org/T.O.%20News%20Release.pdf; accessed July 14, 2006. Snyder LB, Hamilton MA, Mitchell EW, Kiwanuka-Tondo J, Fleming-Milici F, Proctor D. 2004. A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. Journal of Health Communication 9(Suppl 1):71-96. Soldz S, Clark TW, Stewart E, Celebucki C, Klein Walker D. 2002. Decreased youth tobacco use in Massachusetts 1996 to 1999: evidence of tobacco control effectiveness. Tobacco Control 11(Suppl 2):ii14-ii19. Spoth RL, Redmond C, Trudeau L, Shin C. 2002. Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behavior 16(2):129-134. State of California. 2004. Proposition 99 and the Legislative Mandate for the California Tobacco Control Program. Web Page. Available at: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/html/about.htm; accessed May 22, 2006. Stattin H, Kerr M. 2000. Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Childhood Development 71(4):1072-1085.
OCR for page 267
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Steinberg L, Fletcher A, Darling N. 1994. Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. Pediatrics 93(6 Pt 2):1060-1064. Stephens T, Pederson LL, Koval JJ, Kim C. 1997. The relationship of cigarette prices and nosmoking bylaws to the prevalence of smoking in Canada. American Journal of Public Health 87(9):1519-1521. Stephens T, Pederson LL, Koval JJ, Macnab J. 2001. Comprehensive tobacco control policies and the smoking behaviour of Canadian adults. Tobacco Control 10(4):317-322. Stevens C. 1998. Designing an effective counteradvertising campaign—California. Cancer 83(12 Suppl Robert):2736-2741. Stillman FA, Hartman AM, Graubard BI, Gilpin EA, Murray DM, Gibson JT. 2003. Evaluation of the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST): a report of outcomes. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95(22):1681-1691. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department. 2003. Fresh Air Everywhere. Web Page. Available at: http://www.tpchd.org/files/library/fb76d4134077b3c4.pdf; accessed July 11, 2006. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. 2001. Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(2 Suppl):10-15. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. 2005. The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide): What Works to Promote Health? Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Tauras JA. 2004a. Public policy and smoking cessation among young adults in the United States. Health Policy 68(3):321-332. Tauras JA. 2004b. Public policy and smoking cessation among young adults in the United States. Health Policy 68(3):321-332. Tauras JA, Chaloupka FJ, Farrelly MC, Giovino GA, Wakefield M, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Kloska DD, Pechacek TF. 2005. State tobacco control spending and youth smoking. American Journal of Public Health 95(2):338-344. Tedeschi B. 2005, April 4. Now That Credit Card Companies Won’t Handle Online Tobacco Sales, Many Merchants Are Calling It Quits. The New York Times. C. p. 5. TEROC (Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee). 2000. Toward a Tobacco-Free California: Strategies for the 21st Century, 2000-2003. Web Page. Available at: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/documents/pubs/TEROCReport99.pdf; accessed February 1, 2006. TEROC. 2003. Toward a Tobacco-Free California, 2003-2005: The Myth of Victory. Web Page. Available at: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/documents/pubs/TobaccoMasterPlan2003.pdf; accessed February 1, 2006. Thomson CC, Fisher LB, Winickoff JP, Colditz GA, Camargo CA Jr, King C 3rd, Frazier AL. 2004. State tobacco excise taxes and adolescent smoking behaviors in the United States. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 10(6):490-496. Tilson EC, McBride CM, Lipkus IM, Catalano RF. 2004. Testing the interaction between parent-child relationship factors and parent smoking to predict youth smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health 35(3):182-189. Times Wire Services. 2006, July 6. DHL to Restrict Cigarette Shipments. Los Angeles Times. Business. P. 3. TIPS (Tobacco Information and Prevention Source). 2006a. Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine Levels—Fact Sheet. Web Page. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/factsheet_ets.htm; accessed July 14, 2006. TIPS. 2006b. Secondhand Smoke: Fact Sheet. Web Page. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/secondhand_smoke_factsheet.htm; accessed July 10, 2006.
OCR for page 268
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Tobler NS. 1992. Drug prevention programs can work: research findings. Journal of Addictive Disorders 11(3 ):1-28. Trochim WM, Stillman FA, Clark PI, Schmitt CL. 2003. Development of a model of the tobacco industry’s interference with tobacco control programmes. Tobacco Control 12(2):140-147. Trudeau L, Spoth R, Lillehoj C, Redmond C, Wickrama KA. 2003. Effects of a preventive intervention on adolescent substance use initiation, expectancies, and refusal intentions. Prevention Science 4(2):109-122. Tuttle R. 2006, July 6. DHL Agrees to Stop Shipping Cigarettes Sold Via Internet. Newsday. Ubelacker S. 2005, August 15. Kids’ exposure to second-hand smoke may lead to smoking as teens: study. Canadian Press NewsWire. Web page. Available at: http://www.nexis.com; accessed July 11, 2006. UPS reviews cigarette shipments. 2005. Atlanta Journal Constitution. July 6, D3. U.S. Fed News. 2005, March 17. Attorneys General, ATF Announce Joint Initiative with Credit Card Companies to Prevent Illegal Cigarette Sales Over Internet. U.S. Fed News. Vartiainen E, Fallonen U, McAlister AL, Puska P. 1990. Eight-year follow-up results of an adolescent smoking prevention program: the North Karelia Youth Project. American Journal of Public Health 80(1):78-79. Vartiainen E, Paavola M, McAlister A, Puska P. 1998. Fifteen-year follow-up of smoking prevention effects in the North Karelia youth project. American Journal of Public Health 88(1):81-85. Vartiainen E, Pallonen U, McAlister A, Koskela K, Puska P. 1983. Effect of two years of educational intervention on adolescent smoking (the North Karelia Youth Project). Bulletin of the World Health Organization 61(3):529-532. Vartiainen E, Pallonen U, McAlister A, Koskela K, Puska P. 1986. Four-year follow-up results of the smoking prevention program in the North Karelia Youth Project. Preventive Medicine 15(6):692-698. Vokes NI, Bailey JM, Rhodes KV. 2006. “Should I give you my smoking lecture now or later?” Characterizing emergency physician smoking discussions and cessation counseling. Annals of Emergency Medicine 48(4):406-414, 414-417. Wakefield M, Chaloupka F. 2000. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tobacco Control 9(2):177-186. Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ, Kaufman NJ, Orleans CT, Barker DC, Ruel EE. 2000. Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study. BMJ 321(7257):333-337. Wallack L, Dorfman L, Jernigan D, Mekani T. 1993. Media Advocacy and Public Health. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Waller BJ, Cohen JE, Ferrence R, Bull S, Adlaf EM. 2003. The early 1990s cigarette price decrease and trends in youth smoking in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Public Health 94(1):31-35. Warner KE. 1977. The effects of the anti-smoking campaign on cigarette consumption. American Journal of Public Health 67(7):645-650. Warner K. 2000. The deed for, and value of, a multi-level approach to disease prevention: the case of tobacco control. IOM. Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies From Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pp. 417-449. Warner KE. 1979. Clearing the airwaves: the cigarette ad ban revisited. Policy Analysis 5:435-450. Warner KE. 1985. Cigarette advertising and media coverage of smoking and health. New England Journal of Medicine 312(6):384-388.
OCR for page 269
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation Warner KE, Mendez D, Smith DG. 2004. The financial implications of coverage of smoking cessation treatment by managed care organizations. Inquiry 41(1):57-69. Washington State Department of Revenue. 2005. Major Tribal Internet Cigarette Seller Agrees to Provider Customer Lists. Web Page. Available at: http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/News/2005/NR_Smokesignals_settles.pdf; accessed July 11, 2006. Wechsler H, Kelley K, Seibring M, Kuo M, Rigotti NA. 2001. College smoking policies and smoking cessation programs: results of a survey of college health center directors. Journal of American College Health 49(5):205-213. Weintraub JM, Hamilton WL. 2002. Trends in prevalence of current smoking, Massachusetts and states without tobacco control programmes, 1990 to 1999. Tobacco Control 11(Suppl 2):ii8-ii13. White J, Bero LA. 2004. Public health under attack: the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST) and the tobacco industry. American Journal of Public Health 94(2):240-250. Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP. 2005. A systematic review of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up. Journal of Adolescent Health 36(3):162-169. Wilcox GJ. 2005, April 14. Apartment smoking bans may widen. Daily News. Worden JK, Flynn BS, Geller BM, Chen M, Shelton LG, Secker-Walker RH, Solomon DS, Solomon LJ, Couchey S, Costanza MC. 1988. Development of a smoking prevention mass media program using diagnostic and formative research. Preventive Medicine. 17(5):531-558. Yolton K, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Lanphear BP, Hornung R. 2005. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive abilities among U.S. children and adolescents. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(1):98-103. Yong HH, Borland R, Siahpush M. 2005. Quitting-related beliefs, intentions, and motivations of older smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Addictive Behavior 30(4):777-788. Yurekli AA, Zhang P. 2000. The impact of clean indoor-air laws and cigarette smuggling on demand for cigarettes: an empirical model. Health Economics 9(2):159-170. Zhu S, Melcer T, Sun J, Rosbrook B, Pierce JP. 2000. Smoking cessation with and without assistance: a population-based analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 18(4):305-311. Zollinger TW, Saywell RM Jr, Muegge CM, Wooldridge JS, Cummings SF, Caine VA. 2003. Impact of the life skills training curriculum on middle school students tobacco use in Marion County, Indiana, 1997–2000. Journal of School Health 73(9):338-346. Zucker D, Hopkins RS, Sly DF, Urich J, Kershaw JM, Solari S. 2000. Florida’s “truth” campaign: a counter-marketing, anti-tobacco media campaign. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 6(3):1-6.
OCR for page 270
Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation This page intentionally left blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter: